Evolution: science corrupted by politics?

[wallie_x]

Anyone who has visited the last few threads about evolution cannot help but notice that most of the discussion has erupted into flame wars of opposing ideologies. And this very thing is what should call the current theories and so-called evidence concerning evolution into serious question: evolution has become politicized. To opposing camps, each with an ideological agenda, fight for swaying and perhaps proselytize new converts to their respective camps. And it is openly known who these opposing camps are: Atheists vs. Christians.
Shouldn’t we then expect to see the very same type of spin, polemics, selective disinformation and out right vicious attempts to discredit a valid source that contradicts a position with the same fury as modern politics? Yes we should; but equally as unfortunate, is that this should call into question some of the loudest voices on either side as it is usually the ones who scream at the top of their lungs whose ideas are the most politically charged.

Point #1: Darwinism’s Achilles Heel?

“Of course, physical theorists had long been accustomed to choosing formalisms to fit a scientific problem. But it had been widely, if unconsciously, assumed that the need to do so ad hoc was a function of human ignorance; that, given good enough mathematics and logic, we could deduce the correct choice from first principles, producing a-priori descriptions of reality to be confirmed, as an afterthought, by empirical check.”

Source:HERE!
This statement is from a web page about the nature of math and whether the latter should be considered an a priori form of reasoning that is separate and distinct from reality.
But what it outlines should be considered a fault in the nature of certain types of scientific reasoning.
Much of modern science stills postulates a theory and looks for evidence to confirm that same idea. As we’ve seen in evolution though, the theorists have been so **** sure of their theory, that they’ve been seriously duped numerous times by so-called evidence of ‘proof’ of their theories which later turned out as hoaxes. (i.e. ‘Piltdown Man’ and the ‘dino-bird hoax that surfaced in 1999.)
What I am trying to convey here is the arrogance of their mind set. They are so absolutely positive that they will find evidence that validates their theories that it has deeply prejudiced their thoughts; they can no longer see clear enough to make rational distinctions of what is real and what is not.
(Please remember however, that I am referring to certain people and factions within the scientific community and not labeling the community, or even evolutionists, as a whole.)

Point #2: The fallacy of ‘Inerrancy”

Likewise, on the Theist’s side we see what appears as almost lunacy. Most of this comes from an erroneous assumption about the bible. Certain groups within Christianity maintain that since the bible is the ‘Word of God’ that it is therefore inerrant (cannot contain errors). The real issue here is not whether the bible is the word of God, since that will forever be a matter of faith; the issue is how should we interpret this ‘word’. Is it literal or allegorical, or perhaps even both? Those who hold to the position of inerrancy likewise usually hold to the necessity that the bible should be interpreted literally. Need I say more that this view places them in the unenviable position of defending an almost untenable arguement. Worst, is that this literal interpretation position has obvious contradictions to both reason and science. And in actuality detracts from their mission of defending Christianity because it adds proof to the polemic that ‘only an idiot could believe in Christianity.’ Were the heavens and all that is within them literally created in ‘six days’? I would venture most assuredly not. The term ‘day’ with in the scriptures can refer to an open-ended unit of measure. “A day is as thousand years, and a thousand years are but a day to the Lord” 2 Peter 3:9 Need I say more? Religion should never contradict reason or proven science.

And just to add diversity:

Is Darwinism Responsible for the Carnage of the last Century's Wars and Genocides?
YES!!! HERE!!
At least according to this nu.. I mean person.
(I believe his point is partially true even though I do question the sanity of its author.)

ALSO:

Inconsistencies in evolutionary theory: a valid arguement
HERE!

[daveleau]

What's interesting is that most people are absolutists when they look at either evolution or Creationism. There is plenty of evidence for both to have validity. How can that occur? Well, it can occur if they work together instead of viewing them as diametrically opposed, which they are not.

For instance:
1- What if God created the Earth using evolution as a tool? What if the Earth really is billions of years old and God's time in the Bible is not interpreted correctly by us? When God created man, he did so by breathing a soul into an existing being which is now known as man. The soul is, after all, what is made in God's image, not the body.

2- What if the earth is billions of years old and we are the second coming of inhabitants here with the first being the Pre-adamites? The head of the Pre-adamites being Lucifer who fell causing the earth to be destroyed and remade with Adam and Eve.

3- The earth was created all at once some 4000 years ago and it was made to look older than it really is. This would be a functioning earth idea where God implanted items that make the earth look older to tempt us to think otherwise. Because the world would not fulfill its purpose if we did not have temptations which give us free will.

These are all concepts that are good food for thought. I do not believe any of them wholeheartedly, but give them more of a chance than strict evolution. Evolution is completely disproven by one law of physics: entropy. Random disorder breeds more disorder- not complex organisms. This is impossible no matter how much time is given, if there is not a creator.

Then again, there is the evidence that Darwin and other scientists put forth that can not be ignored. Carbon dating, the closeness of the genomes of certain species, Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny, etc are all things that are not explained by the strict interpretation of the Bible. While I believe the Bible is inerrant, I do not think it is all inclusive. There are ideas and laws that are not stated there, and I believe this is done on purpose to spawn idealogical differences like we have seen here. AKA free will.

Just my .02. In the end, I believe that God is supreme, His Word is inerrant and that Jesus Christ is our Savior and that is what is important, IMO.

[wallie_x]

daveleau sez: 3- The earth was created all at once some 4000 years ago and it was made to look older than it really is. This would be a functioning earth idea where God implanted items that make the earth look older to tempt us to think otherwise. Because the world would not fulfill its purpose if we did not have temptations which give us free will.

And why would God play such a pratical joke on us? This idea makes the God of Christianity look much more one the gods of Greek mythology. And if God did such a thing, how could we ever know what was real and what was not just another 'practical joke.'

[IC]

Originally posted by daveleau
What's interesting is that most people are absolutists when they look at either evolution or Creationism. There is plenty of evidence for both to have validity. How can that occur? Well, it can occur if they work together instead of viewing them as diametrically opposed, which they are not.

In the end, I believe that God is Supreme, His Word is inerrant and that Jesus Christ is our Savior and that is what is important, IMO.

Looking at the links provided by Wallie_X, it is interesting to note that amongst all of the people mentioned, Christ was not a despot at all.

"Jesus Christ is our Saviour." Yes, if YOU recognise the fact that God is YOUR Father, just as God was, and still is, Christ's father.

This applies to ALL male AND female Children as God has made both Genders. Here again, we take the Shu-Tefnut Husband ad Wife Eternal Couple into account. In real life this pairing is represented by Osiris-Isis.

On the matter of Creation, you may ask which came first, God or His Creation? Equally which came first? God or the planet?

So as god Created the planet, then He must have had a hand in evolution too, for without the planet there would be nothing.

[IC]

Originally posted by wallie_x
daveleau sez:

And why would God play such a pratical joke on us? This idea makes the God of Christianity look much more like one the gods of Greek mythology. And if God did such a thing, how could we ever know what was real and what was not just another 'practical joke.'

Don't you know the Joker laughs at you?

Personally I have no time for jokers in real life and consequently I have no time for practical jokers at all.

Regarding another link to an article about "Warrior popes", how does anyone consider this applies to living in PEACE?

i.e. WHY is anyone fighting over a hole in the "name of holiness".

Is this, in your carefully considered opinion, a Godly thing to do?

In Greek Mythology, Zeus was God. Other characters were people, some of whom were given divine attributes.

(There was a televised showing of Jason and The Argonauts just last night on local TV.)

Best female role goes to Medea, a really poisonous snake-like mythological creature, with the torso of a woman, a rattle-snake's tail, hair made of snakes, with a bow and a quiver full of arrows, whose gaze alone could turn men to stone.

Her blood was so poisonous as to be like vitriol and could melt metal shields, swords, etc.

A mythological version of Lucretia Borghia.

[daveleau]

I don't think it is a joke, but I do believe that God allows us to have free will and this is just one way of giving us an option. Of course, we must overlook the complexities and beauty and laws to believe in evolution. Then again, it could be satan's work to bring doubt into Creation. But, I don't know if God would allow that.

Again, these are just ideas I have tossed around in my head to try to reconcile the scientific data and the Bible. If it came down to it and I had to be an absolutist, I'd chose Creationism.

[shahani]

In response to your thread title, I think its more accurate to say:

Evolution-Science corrupted by Religion?

Just my opinion.

[IC]

Originally posted by daveleau
I don't think it is a joke, but I do believe that God allows us to have free will and this is just one way of giving us an option. Of course, we must overlook the complexities and beauty and laws to believe in evolution. Then again, it could be satan's work to bring doubt into Creation. But, I don't know if God would allow that.

Again, these are just ideas I have tossed around in my head to try to reconcile the scientific data and the Bible. If it came down to it and I had to be an absolutist, I'd chose Creationism.

So just who is the great satan? More religious rubbish.

This is a planet populated by Human Beings.

The rest or this "religious" nonsenses are just flights of fancy.

What is wrong with accepting the fact as it is?

God Created the planet and its people and it all needs to be regulated fairly without all of this devil and satan nonsense.

[wallie_x]

daveleau sez:
"Of course, we must overlook the complexities and beauty and laws to believe in evolution."

I don't see how this is necessarily so. If evolution tries to establish a reality separate from the empirical laws of creation it will be little more than an existential figment of man's mind. For evolution to be correct it must attempt to validate the way God brought about creation not explain it away, or it will forever be ‘full of it’, and I don't think the main corpus of the theory tries to do this. Its the lunatic fringe anti-God 'evolutionists’ who are trying to force this “evolution is proof God doesn’t exist” into the theory.

When humanity views anything created by God we see these things through the innate mental filters that make us human: reason, intuition, logic and perhaps greatest of all, our human fallibility. We will never be able to see reality as it actually is. And one of the reasons is because we can never objectively separate ourselves from it. We are part of it, and it seems odd to me that the only place we can conceive reality somewhat correctly, is in the echoes of our sentience. There is something there, in our mind (or soul) that allows us to view darkly the transcendence behind the material creation. If we try to force this transcendent non-material aspect of reality through empirical filters (science) what comes out could be compared to nothing. Empiricism is only capable of studying the nature of phenomenal reality. It will never cross into the realm of faith, because faith can never have has its authoritative leader the human intellect. If we try this we will only succeed in undermining our faith.

The mechanics of science put forth by human reason contain the very fallibility that makes us human. They can never contradict the laws put forth in creation because there are no laws different in our universe. If we view things differently it is due to human error. Science and religions goals are one in the same, a search for truth. Their explanations can never contradict one another and at the same time be correct.

[wallie_x]

shahani sez: "Evolution-Science corrupted by Religion?"

So you think atheism is a religion then? I do.

(I believe atheism's attempt to 'highjack' the theory has been the largest corrupting factor of it.)